Yet to be revised and edited
Theology after Vedanta, An Experiment in Comparative Theology
and
The Art & Theology of Srivaisnava Thinkers,
Francis X. Clooney, S.J.
A creative Theologian always helps any lay man to trace out a common minimum theology amidst mass doctrinal materials which he/she finds in the scripture(s) of his/her faith in a scattered way. As a believer, he/she may not and need not worry or concern to ‘dig out’ any systematic theology from such scattered doctrinal materials to keep his/her faith (‘which may ‘religiously unnecessary for the individual believer [who can get by without most things]’1 However both in defending his/her faith based on a strong doctrine as well as to profess his/her religion in day to day life, in a fast changing pluralistic society he/she needs a proper theology and here a creative theologian’s contribution comes to his/her help. It is almost the experience of every believer of a particular sampradaaya that while the text(s)/Scripture(s) which provides the foundation for his/her faith, it is only the commentators of that scripture who formulate that particular ‘doctrine’, which some time may be even imposed on him/her without his/her knowledge. To say in other words, what the author(s) of scripture(s) shared from their personal experience is several times was ‘reduced’ as an objective theology by the commentators. Though it is not only agreed but also a necessity that these theologians cannot do their job without having a personal commitment to their scripture(s), yet they cannot avoid the ‘tension that must arise with the general claim that the text is both truly the record of experience and truly perfect theology’ (Srivaisnava… p.94). This being the truth, how much more a lay man will find it difficult both live with at the same time without comprehending such theology in his day to day life? And who can come to his/her rescue in such tension both for the lay man and theologian, particularly in the context of “Today’s Pluralism”. And the answer that Cloony seems to propose is a “Hindu-Christian Studies as a Necessary Laxury in the Context of Today’s Pluralism”.
To understand this tension of ‘experience’ versus ‘theology’ Cloony’s work breaks a new ground in the science of comparative theology. ‘…Theology, to characterize it in a non-technical fashion, is distinct from the study of religion (with which it overlaps in many of its procedures) because theology is an inquiry carried on by believers who allow their belief to remain an explicit and influential factor in their research, analysis and writing. Believing theologians are (usually) members of believing communities, and have those communities as their primary audiences whether or not the bulk of their writing is addressed to them. With their communities, they believe in some transcendent (perhaps supernatural) reality, the possibility of and (usually fact of) a normative revelation, and in the need to make practical decisions and life choices which have a bearing on salvation. Theologians do their work with an awareness of and concern for these beliefs, and with a desire to defend and preserve them, even if at one or another moment they may have to question, recontextualize and finally reformulate them in modes of discourse quite different from those already familiar to the community.'(Vedantaa…pp.4-5)
This being the tension and problem of a Theologian within a sampradaaya how much more would be the difficult of a comparative theologians in dealing with the theology of the others faith. And here one finds the real commitment of Cloony in his art as a comparative theologian as he well said: ‘Unwilling to reduce their own tradition’s faith claims to mere information which does not require a response, comparative theologians likewise refuse to reduce other traditions’ faith to mere, safe information. Knowledge, taken seriously, changes the lives of the knowers; even if research reveals or creates a series of contradictions which make life more difficult for the believing comparativist, to pass over these in silence is only a short term solution which manages to leave out much of what is most interesting in comparisons, the specific, “thick” details which constitute the substance of communities’ religious beliefs and their continuing vitality’ Vedanta…, p.5, Italics added)
The greatness of Cloony as a Comparative theologian is the recognition of his limitation as an outsider to the Hindu Scriptures. After doing his best in describing ‘in a preliminary fashion the major formal, thematic and directive features of Tiruvaaymoli‘, he continues, ‘in doing so, I have studiously tried to remain on the “surface” of the text, avoiding unnecessary conjectures about what might lie behind the test—e.g., the “mind of the author” or the “real meaning” or the “major point;” whatever one might want to say later on, a careful, close hearing of the text is the only legitimate starting point; ultimately, one must be vallaar (efficient) before one expounds the text, and insofar as we are not vallaar (efficient) we-, the student, the newcomer—must speak with genuine modesty’ (Srivaisnava…, p.46). What he says about Tiruvaaymoli, I hope is equally applicable in his endeavour in ‘Theology after Vedanta‘ also.
But Cloony’s genius is demonstrated in not only recognising his limitation as an outsider to Hindu Scriptures, but even as a Theologian pointing out the dangers of ‘(over) systematization’2 of texts by the theologian in their art of forming theology. After giving a ‘doctrinally minimalist’ 3(Srivaisnava…, p.48) theology, Cloony concludes the topic of ‘Detecting the Theology of Tiruvaaymoli‘ (pp.46-49) by saying:
‘We must therefore be aware of the danger of (over)systematization. Eve the most noble efforts to construct “Satakoopan’s theology” are always in danger of replacing his text with a prose-prosaic-summation of it. For a large part of the distinctive character of Tiruvaaymoli, its rich, “uneven” topography and mixed tensive temporal possibilities, which will get lost in a summation of the text as a whole, or of its themes in particular when these are removed from their contexts and paced in combinations not adopted by Satakoopan. Summation frequently privileges ideas from outside the text, as questions are posed to it which will lead to one summarization over against possible other ones: “What does Satakoopan say about bhakti?” “What does he say about the gods?” “List everything he says about temples.” “Give an outline of the philosophy of Tiruvaaymoli, etc Unless summation is taken up after a practiced appropriation of the text in its complexity, it must be termed “lazy,” an evasion of the more rigorous and detailed process of literary and religious appropriation.’ (Srivaisnava…, p.49)
Thus the two works of Cloony : Theology after Vedanta, An Experiment in Comparative Theology and The Art & Theology of Srivaisnava Thinkers,though they deal with the scriptures of two different sampradaayas, yet the basic structure of the books are similar. However it must be admitted that though both the books deals with the tension between ‘text’ and ‘theology’, yet the analysis in Theology after Vedanta is based on a broad scope dealing with so many minute details after Vedanta while The Art & Theology of Srivaisnava Thinkers is limited to one particular Scripture of Vaishnava sampradaaya viz. Tiruvaaymozhi (here I use the common word ‘zhi’ for ‘l’ with a dot below) based on its (five) commentaries of the Srivaisnava tradition (by Nampillai, Pillan, Nanciyar, Vatakkutiruveethipillai, Periyavaccanpillai and Vatikesari anavalaciyar). Like wise Theology after Vedanta, true to its aim of comparitive study includs a topic on Thomas Acquains Theology. If the former is macroscopic in its approach dealing with Advaita Vedanta as a Theology/philosophy (of course based on Baadaraayana’s Uttara Miimaamsaa Suutras) the later can be called as microscopic .
In Theology after Vedanta, Cloony skillfully analysis how the Uttara Miimaamsaa Suutras (popularly known as Vedaanta suutra) try to systematize a particular doctrine from the Upanisads’ which ‘ maintain a certain ironic detachment from their own formalizing activity, assuring textually that knowledge can never be adequately communicated by its texts: texts serve their proper function when they call into question their own reliability and adequacy.'(Vedanta…p.44) and ‘This shift to knowledge about Brahman, extrapolated from the texts as their meaning, is the beginning of Advaita as Vedanta philosophy. (ibid,p.69)
Such a proper study of ‘text proper’ become inevitable once the Neo-Vedantins of our time try to curve an universal philosophy out of Advaita Vedanta,4 which is more a theology than philosophy. Thus,’ in making the commentarial side of Advaita central and in describing Advaita as primarily theological,’ says Cloony, ‘ I distinguish my work from the mainstream of modern approaches to Advaita, which have used an almost entirely philosophical (ibid, p.26) language in their treatment of Advaita (ibid, p.27)’ and to prove this he gives’ at least three important reasons5 why scholars have favored the philosophical approach to Advaita, according to which the textual-exegetical commentarial side of the tradition is downplayed in proportion to the doctrines of self and non-dualism (ibid, p.27). No doubt in that ‘Advaita has suffered at the hands of readers who have discussed its themes without sufficient attention to the manner in which these (the texture of the Text6) are inscribed in the Text’.(ibid, p.38)
Thus in the words of Cloony: ‘The intention of this book regarding Advaita’s truth is therefore twofold. On the one hand, it resists the temptation to reduce Advaita to its literary excellences, or to the ever-receding horizon of a completion of the commentarial ascertainment of truth; on the other, it resists the temptation to replace Advaita with a superior text or idea which states its truth more directly and simply than the Advaitins were capable of doing, thereby making the Text superfluous to its own concisely stated meaning. Instead, I seek to trace Advaita’s own way of articulating its truth textually, from its preserved and appreciated exegetical basis, and to indicate a way of speaking about that truth which does not abandon its textual basis for the sake of its articulation….'(ibid,p.34).
Compared to Theology after Vedanta, The Art and Theology of Srivaisnava Thinkers is more simplistic in its approach as Cloony here deals with a single text with commentaries which ‘do not proceed by position and counter-position and by arguments in the way that is common in the Mimamsa and Vedanta commentaries. Here the writing of commentary is the act of memory by which the community remembers and enunciates its sources anew’ (Srivaisnava…back cover). However this does not mean that one can easily understand or apprise Cloony here also as we find it difficult in Theology after Vedanta. Because both in Theology after Vedanta and in The Art and Theology of Srivaisnava Thinkers the way he analysis the ‘texture of the text’ and its ‘Resources and strategies for interpretation’ will keep these books away from an average reader who could well be benefited from his hard labour. Such a hair splitting analysis, which is of course is a NECESSITY considering the fact that ‘a series like this is also a way of creating a tradition of earnest research and intellectual commitment’ (The Art & Theology of Srivaisnava Thinkers, Series Editor’s Preface, vii), yet it gives the impression that the energy and concentration which one needs to comprehend such analysis will exhaust ordinary reader before he/she could both comprehend and appreciate Cloony.
Apart from the struggle for a lay man to comprehend such hair splitting analysis, even not only a scholar interested in this science of comparative theology but even the author will find it difficult to do full justice to his approach as he is dealing with an alien text and language. For example after examining ‘the interplay of formal, thematic and directive elements in individual verses and songs (in pp.10-34, Srivaisnava), Cloony says, ‘we can search farther afield-presuming that meanings are regular, and on that basis seeking guidance throughout Tiruvaaymoli as to what any particular reference or image might mean. Yet here too, the kinds of presuppositions and implications which characterize Tiruvaaymoli make it difficult to determine such meanings decisively. Let us examine two examples’ (pp.34-35) of “tall one” netiyaaya and ‘amarntu‘.
After quoting VI.10.1, Cloony continues, ‘we are given no help as to what “tall one” means here, and legitimately seek elsewhere in Tiruvaaymoli for guidance. When we search, we find that there are 27 references to the “tall one” in Tiruvaaymoli. Most of these references are similar, bare references to the “tall one”. Without any evident qualification’ (p.36) and concludes after quoting two more references of V.8.1 and VI.9.8. ‘This contextual education regarding a term is valuable but never decisive; surely, it excludes wrong ideas, but it does not determine the right idea definitively. But one is left with the broadened understanding of the word as used in 26 other places in the text, in other contextualizations.’ (p.36) and concludes ‘Thus one has to decide, as listener and reader, what the word “tall one” contributes in VI.10.1, in part on the basis of one’s knowledge that the word is indeed used elsewhere; one may implicitly at least draw on those other contexts where the word is used, and so the meaning in this place is enriched and specified’ (p.36).
In understanding the meaning of a particular word, not only the context of the word in that given text, but the whole literature in that language is to be considered. Apart from this in India, where several sampradaayas flourished within the same culture and language a word can have common meaning for all and particular meaning for that sect also. So it is not only the Text and Textual context but the living context of the word used and understood by the people also determine the meaning of such word. As a lay man, my understanding of the word ‘Netiyaya‘ is ‘gigantic’ or ‘gambeer‘ (in Hindi) as used by Sri Thyagaraja in his keertan ‘Aajaanubahu‘(in Telugu, Ref?). So the people professing the faith of a sect won’t find any difficult in understanding the meaning. But Cloony’s hair splitting analysis of these words and lines shows the difficulty of an outsider to understand the other’s scripture.
Similarly his discussion about ‘amarntu‘ shows how sometimes scholars complicate simple things which a lay man easily understands. He says ‘More specifically, the notion of attaining a place “beneath the Lord’s feet-rather than simply at his feet-is also common in Tiruvaaymoli, as Satakoopan’s own real or desired situation’ (p.37). But every Tamilian will agree that “beneath the Lord’s feet” and “at his feet” doesn’t have much difference as the word “feet”, “ati“, “paatam“, “caran“, “taal“, express the dasabhava (servant hood) of a bhakta. I guess that the reason for creating such a difference is due to the fact that as ‘the feet with which the Lord has performed great deeds in the past, such as measuring the world’ (p.37) in Vaamana avatara, he thinks (or imposes) a difference between “beneath the Lord’s feet—rather than simply at his feet”. Likewise in ‘the role of the antaati in establishing the larger whole’, we can say a lot. But considering the limitation of space and need it is enough to say that In general antaati reveals the skill of the poet than playing any significant role in relating the individual verses to the larger whole. So it is doubtful to trace any link with a ‘fixed and univocal meaning’ (p.40) in it. If we read Abiraami antaati by Abiraami Bhattar, we can understand this.
However, while expressing our questions about such a hair splitting analysis, it is to be recognized that Cloony himself is aware of such problem as he rightly concludes this topic of “resources and strategies for interpretation by saying: It is one of the more powerful and attractive features of Tiruvaaymoli that it allows readers to compose it in various ways; for then there is no insurmountable obstacle to various favored creative responses. My point here is simply that there is no imperative in the songs themselves to find in them one specific thematic progression…the formal structures—the careful poetic structures, the antaati– create. An expectation which is satisfied by the constructive interpretation of the readers who move from underlying formal unities and thematic parallels to the expectation that the whole “means just one thing” as a whole. Tiruvaaymoli is rich and diverse enough that if one wishes one can find one or another pattern of connection, depending on what one highlights—while someone else can yet devise another pattern or suggest that the text ought not be taken according to a pattern.’ (pp.45-46)
Conclusion:
Scripture is the result of personal encounter based on his/her experience with God/Truth. Theology is the result of intellectual encounter of the Scripture(s) by the commentators. A lay man, to profess his/her faith, particularly in a pluralistic world needs both the first hand experience of the author of his/her scripture and intellectual comprehension of the doctrine formed by the theologian of his sampradaaya. In such context, he/she cannot avoid tension of assimilating his/her faith at the cost of the one (scripture) to the other (theology). Because each sampradaaya is exclusive in its doctrine. A theologian of that sect can make it inclusive when tries to systemize that doctrine theologically ( by borrowing philosophical, theological and religious technical terms and frames as well as making the theology somewhat “objective” outside the text as we saw in the case of Advaita of Sankara). But the reality of pluralism both in life, faith and theology will create tension both in confession as well as communication of his/her faith for all, including the theologian. Whether we like it or not, we cannot avoid pluralism both in life and faith, particularly at this time. Then the role of a Theologian becomes not only important but also crucial to make his/her theology either as a blessing or a burden to the common people of his sect. Here alone a comparative theologian like Cloony becomes not only a ‘Necessary Luxury in the Context of Today’s Pluralism” (Hindu-Christian Studies) but also a guide to launch an adventures expedition both for the theologian and lay man of a particular sampradaaya to get benefit from the thankless job of comparative study both to assimilate as well as formulate a relevant theology to keep one’s faith alive. Because ‘Once the expectation that the text is theologically significant in everything it says becomes operative, the commentarial [or theological] task inevitably becomes the discernment of that significance everywhere, through rigorous careful reading. The more one reads Tiruvaaymoli [or Vedaanta], the more one finds, the more one is compelled to articulate distinctions for which one must then also find a basis. Though not forgotten, the general dramatic narrative recedes ever so slightly into the background, in the face of the theologization of the text and the concomitant theological dramatization of every detail. For all generations thereafter, there is always a (creative, positive but nevertheless real) tension between the sheer enjoyment and dramatization of Tiruvaaymoli [or any particular scripture] on the one had, and the perfect rationalization and theologization of it on the other’ (The Art & Theology of Srivaisnava Thinkers., p.107.)
‘Pluralism happens, whether religious scholars are doing research or not; research is not the linchpin of progress in the interreligious realm, it is a luxury, extra and non-essential. In my view, though, it can be termed a necessary luxury’, (Hindu-Christian studies.… p. 40) says Cloony. This is the impression one may get after reading both the books of Cloony. But as we have seen, to resolve the tension between a subjective experience of the scripture(s) and objective necessary of a theology based on that scripture(s) – not only for a lay man but even for a scholar and theologian, the present context of pluralism of both life and faith can either contribute or confuse. Trusting one’s own inherent experience and sufficiency of scripture(s) and doctrine may turn any faith to become exclusive. Just borrowing the technical terms and frames to make one’s own theology as inclusive without wrestling with the tension of comparative study accepting its challenges will become theological fundamentalism. In order just to survive in a pluralistic world if one makes his/her faith or theology as pluralism will make him/her to cut his/her own ground of existence.
So ‘To admit that Hindu-Christian studies are not a necessity is to admit that the world goes on around us, that the exciting and important encounters of religious peoples are taking place at an increasingly fast pace – whether scholars notice this or not, admit it or not; it is, of course, also to admit that this is yet one more thing which is strictly speaking religiously unnecessary for the individual believer (who can get by without most things). In accounting for the way things are and thus sharply diminishing the rhetoric by which scholars often surround what they happen to do with the aura of inevitability, we also achieve the possibility of a more precise sense in which this luxury is a necessary, worthwhile excess’ (Hindu-Christian studies…p.44). Thus the two timely books of Cloony, though coming from a 70 degree theology, remaining in the intellectual altitude of theologians is a challenge ‘for theologian who are committed to a particular religious tradition’ and ‘Theology After Vedaant and The Art & Theology of Srivaisnava Thinkers ‘opens a path toward a new kind of theology of religions that combines two elements. The first is a perspective that is “inclusivist” the sense that it recognizes the potential truth value and soteriological efficacy of the theologies and traditions of “others”. The second element, which serves as an essential complement to the first, is a very hard-nosed method for pursuing potentially transformative comparative studies. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that such an inclusivist, comparatively oriented, potentially transformative theology of religions could revitalize contemporary theological research and reflection not only in Christianity, but (with appropriate adaptations) in other religious traditions as well’ (Frank E. Reynolds, Foreword, p. xvi, in Theology after Vedanta.).
Foot notes:
1. —Francis Cloony, “Hindu-Christian Studies as a Necessary Laxury in the Context of Today’s Pluralism”. Hindu-Christian Studies, p.44.
2. …they (Upanisads) are not presented as single works by single authors, and are not complete systematizations. Consequently, Vedaanta’s theological appropriations of the upanisads are marked from the start as acts of careful reading and constructive systematizations which go beyond what is in the texts.—p.15
3 ‘To hear or read this text is to be introduced not to an idea or ideas, but into a rich and complex world which replicates in an altered fashion the world in which the songs were composed, a world in which, within certain religious limits, one still can and must choose how to be religious; Tiruvaaymoli promotes highly refined, selective religious freedom. To live by Tiruvaaymoli would have certainly located its original audience(s) within a “Vaisnava world,” but it is always open as to how the Vaisnava is to act in regard to myths, temples, love, images of God, individual choices and communal intentions. One must be there to see and taste, to make present now and for oneself whatever it may be that attracts one from the religious past. Tiruvaaymoli as complete text does not merely tell us this: it verbally replicates for us such a world as we must negotiate, it is the place in which the charting of one’s religious world becomes real.
This is a real theology, though it is in a sense doctrinally minimalist. Through it one comes t a certain kind of knowledge of God: as it were, one sees through the text, though without fixing on a single, unambiguous object of vision on the other side of it’ (pp.48-49, Srivai
4. Notes: 38. Anantanand Rambachan (1986, pp.8-24) has skillfully shown that the Indian neo-Vedaantins of the 19th and 20th centuries have taken up the same project of making Advaita “respectable,” and so have downplayed its ritual and exegetical components over against the claims of ahigher truth, pure experience, etc.— The Limits of Scripture,Vivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vedas. Anantanand Rambachan.Sri Satguru Publications A Division of Indian Books Centre, Delhi., 1995p.213
5 ‘The first reason is of course that such a focus is not entirely inimical to Sankara’s estimate of his project, which is much less apparently theological in the ordinary sense than would be Raamaanuja’s Veddanta, for example. Though Sankara constantly uses scripture, he will on occasion refer to exegetical concerns as merely indicative of the popular or lower knowledge of Brahman (See for instance his comments on UMS III.3.1) Though….such claims do not allow us to disregard Advaita’s predominantly verbal and scriptural orientation, it cannot be denied that Advaita makes distinctions within knowledge which lend themselves to the supersession of much of what counts for theological discourse. But Indologists, historians and philosophers have appealed to this hierarchization of the exegetical and the “higher” knowledge in order to justify focusing almost exclusively—too much so—on the latter.
The second reason for a nontheological and philosophical reading of Advaita takes us onto more sensitive ground. Some have denied the appellation “theology” to Advaita not because they overlooked its theological aspects, but out of respect for the system in an age when “theology” was not a term of praise, in order to emphasize its relevance by privileging one or another of its aspects, and so calling it “philosophy,” “metaphysics,” even “mysticism.” For centuries theology has been portrayed as a way of thinking which unduly subordinates reason to extrinsic authoritarian structures, authoritarian authors and leaders, and unquestioned priestly norms….(p.27)
A third motive for the portrayal of Sankara as philosopher lies essentially in the desire to make his thought accessible to an audience which does not share his faith commitment to the upanisads as revelatory and authoritative scriptures. Reason is seen as the bridge which makes cross-cultural, cross-religious communication and understanding possible. Deutsch focuses on this intelligible bridge: “In reconstructing Advaita, we intend to focus on philosophical analysis at the expense of scriptural exegesis. We want to find in Advaita that which is philosophically meaningful to a Westerner and to articulate this content in universal philosophical terms….A reconstruction of Advaita (p.28) Vedaanta is an attempt to formulate systematically one’s understanding of what is of universal philosophical interest in it.” (Fn.39, Deutsch 1969,p.6)(p.29).
6. ‘…the texture of this Text, the particular requirements and expectations written into it which demands of the reader particular responses during the act(s) of reading and then in consequent acts of speaking and writing from and about the Text. Specifically, we need to learn how to leave the Advaita topics permanently inscribed within the Text’s margins, to think about and describe its argumentation and conclusions in ways appropriate to its textul modes of progress, textual organization, and reasoning’ (p.37, Vedanta)
%%%
The following important conclusion is to be placed in a proper place in the review:
…the positive intention of Advaita is to ensure that its truth be actualized in at least a few people, by providing at least for them the maximal education, and in a fashion that promises maximal fruitfulness. Yet by severely restricting and intensely preparing an elite audience for this knowledge, Advaita in practice severely limits its own universality. Its barriers of difficulty, demands on time and energy, and more direct exclusions of the “wrong kind of people” make it formidable, local, defensive; actual competence is extended to just about no one. Expectations regarding the reader are thereby intensified to the highest degree; only in the rare, right reader who carries out the project of reading properly and with preseverance is the supersession of the tension between Text and truth finally achieved. The transition from Uttara Miimaamsaa as practice to Vedaanta as simple knowledge is never a given; it must occur, and occurs only when the proper person comes along.—ibid, p.150
Regarding this position of Samkara, ‘by severely restricting and intensely preparing an elite audience for this knowledge, Advaita in practice severely limits its own universality’ (p.150) and Suresvara, Samkara’s pupil who ‘himself disagrees with Samkara and attempts to demonstrate that his teacher is wrong’ (Olivelle, pp. 196-198) and Olivelle’s point that , Logical conclusions, however, are not always the norm in theological discourse, and Suresvara himself would hardly have defended the capacity of Suudras and women to attain knowledge and to become renouncers.’ (p. 198) is worth comparison between Cloony and Olivelle on which careful study again both on Cloony and Olivelle with Rick is importnat.—dayanand.
The general situation in which any theologian does theology today may also provide some warrants as to why one would take up comparative work. Though richer, the world of religion is now smaller; the encounter with other religions is not the special experience only of those who travel to far-off places; the (p.202) problems facing the human race are increasingly global. If religion is to contribute to their solutions, it is unconvincing to suppose that only one religion will make this contribution, or that religions best make their contribution in isolation from one another. Identities preserved, people of diverse religious backgrounds still do best to cooperate in the responsible practice of contemporary situation, the advantages of a theological discourse enriched by a series of particular contextualizations in multiple Textual traditions cannot be overlooked.—ibid, p.203
If the series of such exercise in reading inscribes not simply conclusions or theories in the theologian, but also new memories and new habits of reading, then it is pointless to offer the expected audience a mere set of conclusions which bypass the requirement that one learn by experiment and practice. Detached from details, abstracted from the experimental context, mere conclusions will inevitably be received by the audience in terms of its general, already established categories; thus invited to enter the process at its end, without having been first prepared to receive what the comparativist intends to communicate, the community is unlikely to understand what is the purpose of all the effort.
If the preparation of the audience is intrinsic to the goal, the comparative theologian will have to determine how to go about “defamiliarizing’ the discussion, frustrating the community’s tendency to apply its already familiar categories, so as to engage the community in the actual practice of theological comparison…—ibid, p.206
Leave a Reply